JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction against the defendant-landlord on 5.2.1991. The defendant-landlord filed counter claim under Order VIII, Rule 6A of 7th May. 1991 alleging that the plaintiff was a licensee under him and the licence was revoked on 14.2.1991. This counter claim was refused by the trial court by order dated It.10.1991 passed by the learned Additional Munsif (III) Court. Barellly in Original Suit No. 56 of 1991. Civil Revision No. 83 of 1991 was preferred against the same. By an order dated 4.10.1993 the Additional District Judge (V) Court, Bareilly had allowed the said revision and accepted the counter claim and directed the suit to proceed in accordance with law. The plaintiff had challenged this order through Sri K. K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. An interim order was obtained on 13.10.1993 staying further proceeding of the suit.
2. Sri. K. K. Arora. learned counsel for the petitioner, who is present in the Court informs that since last two years despite issuing letters, the petitioner has not been responding, therefore, he has no instruction in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondent. Sri Pankaj Naqvi on the hand insists that this matter should be taken up in view of the fact that he had been suffering on account of grant of stay of further proceeding, which in effect is delaying disposal of the proceeding. He contends that the said counter claim is within the ambit of Rule 6A. Order VIII and has rightly been accepted by the revisional court since it was wrongly rejected by the trial court. There is no infirmity in the order of the revisional court and the same is fully justified and supported by law.
3. I have heard Sri Pankaj Naqvi, learned counsel for the respondent at length. In the present case, the suit was suit for injunction on the ground that the plaintiff was tenant and the suit was filed on 5.2.1991, whereas the defendant-respondent had lodged his counter claim on 7.5.1991 admittedly before defence was delivered, which fact is not in dispute, in respecl of cause of action which though arose after the suit was filed but before the defendant had delivered his defence, namely, on 14.2.1991. Since the suit was filed on 5.2.1991, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the time-limit for delivering his defence, had expired on 14.2.1991. Therefore, the cause of action having arisen though after institution of the suit but before the time-limit for filing defence had expired, such counter claim could very well be maintained.
Now so far as the counter claim under Rule 6A is concerned, it might relate to any right or claim in respect of cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after filing the suit but before delivery of defence, whether such counter claim is in the nature of claim of damages or not. Therefore, by virtue of Section 6A. the original concept of Section 6 prior to 1976 Amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been deviated from class of cases. The counter claim that could have been lodged under Rule 6, were confined to the description given In Rule 6, as stood prior to the amendment. After the Insertion of Rule 6A, the counter claim within the said rule, can be of any kind of claim or right of claim whether the same is claim of damages or not. Such expression clearly indicates, having regard to the scheme of rule, that the scope was inclusive and not exhaustive and it includes any right or claim provided the cause of action had arisen either before or after Institution of the suit, but before delivery of defence or before expiry of time-limit for delivery of defence. The above two conditions having been fulfilled and the counter claim having nexus with regard to the issue involved, namely whether the plaintiff is a tenant or licensee. Is very much within the ambit of the suit and can be brought within the framework of the pleadings of the plaint. Such a counter claim can very well be set up in the suit, as has been rightly found by the revisional court.
After having perused the reasoning given in the order dated 4.10.1993, I do not find any infirmity therein. Therefore, 1 am not Inclined to interfere with the said order. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. The trial court shall, however, proceed with the further proceeding in the suit as expedittously as possible, preferably within a period of one year after affording reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff to file his written statement.
4. The defendant shall be at liberty to serve a copy of this order through his counsel in the trial court, upon the counsel representing the plaintiff so as to ensure early disposal of the suit. It is expected that the parties shall not take unnecessary adjournment in the case and shall co-operate in the proceeding.
5. There will be. however, no order as to costs.